On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:56 -0400, Tal Leming wrote:
> Please note that I, a type designer, am not endorsing a single format,
> two formats or anything at this point. This is an extremely complex
> and nuanced issue for those of us who make fonts. Polarizing
> statements are not helping us type designers feel any more comfortable
> with the risk we are being asked to take.
I come at this problem from the software engineering
side - I'm not a type designer. I suspect that I
see some of the subtleties from that angle that you
might not notice.
I think you have misplaced your accusation of who
is being polarizing. The polarizing statement came
from Chris Wilson when he wrote "No." in response
to a question about the possibility of a compromise
in which raw TTF/OTF support is required alongside
an additional format which helps vendors of
restricted-license fonts manage their risks.
Mr. Wilson appears to have softened his statement in
later comments so perhaps it can be reversed. We
can hope.
If, however, that "No." stands, the implication is that
a W3C Recommendation must require a poorly engineered
solution - simply because Microsoft demands it.
Nothing less is at stake, in that case, than the
legitimacy and future of W3C itself.
It is important, therefore, for people generally
and Microsoft in particular to understand the fight
Mr. Wilson's "No." proposes to pick. In effect,
those of us who value W3C's legitimate technical role
must respond by resisting Microsoft's further participation
in the matter. Such resistance can be procedural within
W3C, political in spreading the message of what will have
happened here, and economic in terms of using the
occasion to encourage migration of users away from IE.
I am not polarizing: I am pointing out the consequences
of the polarization Microsoft has created. If they
return to the table, the wound to the community may be
healed. If they do not, we must respond appropriately.
-t